Character Assassination by Academics....

[Vox]

Some people approach a problem as the need to justify their preconceived preference as to what they would like the answer to be. As a result, it is difficult to determine their facts from fiction. Anyone over the age of 50 has seen numerous causes du jour which have turned out to be scams designed to push a liberal political agenda (e.g., Doomsday Clock).

Global Warming seems to fit this pattern in that it's proponents use it as an argument for further government control of the U.S. economy while giving a pass to India and China. The fact that this terminology has now been replaced by the ridiculously nebulous term "Climate Change" further diminished its credibility.

Everyone knows that the Romans grew grapes in Britain before a thousand year cooling trend occurred. Whether we are experiencing a new trend is a legitimate area of study, but leaping to the conclusion that this is man-made condition that can only be remedied by government intervention casts doubt on the opinions of those who are are predicting this latest apocalypse.

one does not even have to be over 50 - in the early 90s it still was the whining about the "cooling and Ice Age". Then it was the hype about ozone holes - one more scam to regulate and profit.
Somewhere before that was the "oil peak" hysteria ( that one I do not remember, just read the remnants about it).

I used to believe it first - as anybody does. But when the "greens" just turned out to be an easy to sell scumbags with a lot of commie grabs and when one scare after the other turned out to be not true I became suspicious. After the Al Gore's shrieking for billions I am cynically sure - the scare is for money only and since I, personally, do not have any share in that profit - get out.

on a more serious note, though, "Cool It" describes the issue perfectly

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jwoodie]

By the way, why are virtually all of these "concerned scientists" left wing ideologues?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Academic hero-worshiping usually derives from an intellectually destitute background wherein the individual is taught not to question those of superior status.

Your response does not include a simple yes or no answer to the question I posed,

which of course can be translated into a 'yes', which you cannot bear to utter out loud.

Nor did you refute my assertion regarding academic hero-worshiping. (A little too close to home?)

As to your "question:" Yes, I believe that a scientific study by liberal scientists can in fact be of scientific value AS LONG AS THE SUBJECT MATTER DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERCEIVED IMPACT ON THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

Why would the scientific value of something change because of the scientist's politics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the way, why are virtually all of these "concerned scientists" left wing ideologues?

When was it proven they are?

 

[flacaltenn]

Your response does not include a simple yes or no answer to the question I posed,

which of course can be translated into a 'yes', which you cannot bear to utter out loud.

Nor did you refute my assertion regarding academic hero-worshiping. (A little too close to home?)

As to your "question:" Yes, I believe that a scientific study by liberal scientists can in fact be of scientific value AS LONG AS THE SUBJECT MATTER DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERCEIVED IMPACT ON THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

Why would the scientific value of something change because of the scientist's politics.

Easy one NYC.. "Scientists" especially publishing ones live and survive thru peer pressure and the pressure to publish and sell their research in the form of grants.

Why would someone under that pressure pursue a publication that went against the consensus that is currently lucrative, to defend it against his happy group of competitive primmadonna peers ---- When they can simply SHELVE IT and move on to a slightly different, more conformist experiment or analysis?

BTW: that's a NON-PARTISIAN observation. It works both ways.. Because of the winds of political and societal change. But it is VERY real..

If a scientist decides to "buck the tide" and take on that challenge, it's a moral judgement of who they are and what they believe that motivates them at that point.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Falca...media frenzy has nothing to do with if it was a few scientists or not. Fact
It was only a few and their theory wasn't peer reviewed. Would you like to try again?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No they weren't...That article was from a few scientists and not....I repeat NOT peer reviewed.

So it's like claiming DNA doesn't hold any information because some guy said so and ignoring the Agreed upon evidence that's been reviewed. Then seriously comparing research to a story.

Bill Maher: How to Become a Global Warming Denier - BLOGGA PLEASE

Now how sad is your talking point when Bill Maher predicted it before you did it

Lying leftists and the lying lies they tell..

Too bad, you actually sounded like you practiced that several times in the mirror

Looks like global cooling is back...

{“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”}

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes